ASSESSMENT TASK TEMPLATE

Module Code: BHO0202

Module Title: Managing organisational design and change
Assessment Task(s) Individual coursework
Academic Year 2019-20

Learning Outcomes

This assessment task addresses the following learning outcomes from the
module specification

8. Demonstrate the use of a wide range of methods, tools and techniques used
to improve organisational effectiveness, operational efficiency and the quality
and performance of organisations and individuals
9. Investigate typical organisational and operational issues and problems.
Identify their root causes and potential solutions
10. Conceptualise organisational situations and issues using models and
diagrams
11. Use established theory to explore organisational situations
12. Use of academic literature to initiate and develop discussion.
13. Present and justify in a credible management report the findings from a case-
based scenario.

Assessment brief
Aims: The aim of this coursework is to look at business challenges, and utilise
models/frameworks around strategy, managing organisations and stakeholders.
Investigate the business problem and critically apply a chosen framework to
understand your evaluation.

Task: Using relevant analytical models and concepts apply these to debate the
demise of Thomas Cook airlines. From your research, utilise your chosen model
to draw out analysis and commentary as to critical aspects that can be debated
due to the failure of the business.

1
You are advised to:

Suggested structure and approximate weighting of marks

Part 1: Discussions of items key to Thomas Cook’s demise, and an exploration/critique of

an appropriate model/s to support your latter analysis. (40%)
Part 2: Strategic analysis, using your chosen, relevant model/s of factors that affected the
airline (40%)
Part 3: Reflection on key aspects that have observed from your analyses. Compare and
contrast how these have been as opposed to might have been dealt with. (20%)

Word count: Up to a maximum of 2,000 words (tables of content, lists of tables and
figures, appendices, list of references, tables and diagrams are not included in the word
count). Please take care on the presentation of your submission. Please take care on the
presentation of your submission. Appendices should be used for essential information
only and should be clearly referenced in the text. Total word count should be clearly
indicated on the front sheet of the assignment. Penalties will apply for exceeding word
count.

Essential: The work should demonstrate critical analysis and evaluation, APA6
referencing method should be used where appropriate. There should be an evidence of a
wider reading, particularly for the first section, to demonstrate your understanding of the
theoretical underpinnings of your analysis (not only textbooks and the company websites
but also academic journals).

 Avoid description of the content of material referred to – critical evaluation is

required where specified.
 Work should be referenced in APA 6th style. The link below is to the library
guidance on referencing and it is recommended you use these resources to
ensure your references are in the correct format.

 http://www.hud.ac.uk/library/finding-info/informationskills/evaluation/referencing/
 Read widely from textbooks, journals and authoritative commentaries in
forming your views.
 Refer back to your tutorial work and notes where you have covered key
issues and developed critical argument that is relevant to the requirement of
this assessment.
 Pay close attention to the Assessment Criteria at the end of this document –
this lists general assessment criteria and specific criteria to the
requirements of this assignment. These criteria will be used to inform your
electronic feedback on your marked assignment.
 Use the University Referencing guide which is APA 6th. Note that poorly
referenced material will lose you marks (make sure you consult the
Learning Development Group Tutors on level 1 of the Business School for
any additional help needed). You can access APA 6th via Brightspace by
clicking on the Library button to access the easy to use online guide.
 Do not exceed the word limit. A 5% mark penalty applies for work
exceeding the word limit.

2
Marking criteria

1. Please refer to the assessment task-specific criteria in Appendix 1. These

show you the issues that will guide your tutors in marking your work. You are
encouraged to use these at all stages of preparing your work. Please
remember that the marking process involves academic judgement and
interpretation within the marking criteria.

2. In addition to the assessment task-specific criteria, generic assessment

criteria are attached in Appendix 2.

3. The Learning Development Group are available to help you to understand

and use the assessment criteria. To book an appointment, either visit them
on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on
busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

4. The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including

plagiarism. The Learning Development Group can also advise and help you
about academic conventions and avoiding ‘poor scholarship’ which can result
in potential academic misconduct.

Submission information
Word Limit: 2000 words
Submission Date: 18 12 2019
Feedback Date: 5 Feb 2020
Submission Time: 15.00
Electronically via Brightspace. Papers submissions are
Submission Method:
not required. For support please contact
Tutor Reassessment Yes

Notes:

Please refer to the Module Handbook for Assessment Guidance in Section 5.

[Module specific – if applicable]

3
Appendix 1 Assessment task-specific marking criteria
Unacceptable Unsatisfactory Pass Fair Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding
(Refer if required)

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
(8 and below (8 and (9-11 (12-15 marks) (16-19 marks) (20-23 marks) (24-27 marks) (32-35 marks) (32-35 marks) (36-40 marks)
marks) below marks) Limited Adequate, more Fair A good Very good Excellent Outstanding
Unacceptabl marks) Minimal examination of descriptive items identification of identification of identification of identification of identification of
e Very poor identificati key reasons, of strategy to some strategic strategic points to strategic points strategic points to strategic points
identification identificati on of any descriptive look at debate. A limited points to debate. A to debate. debate. Excellent to debate.
Discussions of key issues,
of any on of any strategic obvious model or and under debate. A clear thorough Excellent identification of Excellent
identification justification
strategic strategic debating wrongly selected researched text- look at more exploration identification of appropriate identification of
and critique of valuation of
debating debating points. model. Limited book approach to limited models appropriate appropriate models that are appropriate
analytical model/s (40%,
points. points. Models evaluation or the choice of and a narrower, models that are models that are well critiqued models that are
weighting 0.4)
Models Models poorly details around model and more text- book well critiqued well critiqued using a range of well critiqued
inaccurately inaccuratel identified evaluation. critique. approach to the using a range of using a range of literature. using a range of
identified y identified and not choice of model literature. literature. literature.
and not and not explored. and critique.
explored. explored.
<20 <20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90 - 100
(8 and below (8 and (9-11 (12-15 marks) (16-19 marks) (20-23 marks) (24-27 marks) (28-31 marks) (32-35 marks) (36-40 marks)
marks) below marks) Work is An adequate A consistent but A well -structured A very good An excellent Application of
Unacceptabl marks) Limited descriptive and application of more descriptive application of demonstration demonstration of each section of
e structure Poor demonstrat under developed. theory to the application of critical evaluation. of the linkage the linkage the model
with little structure ion of There are no evidence within theory to the Evidence from the between the between the outstanding with
application with little application misconceptions in the case study. evidence within case and linkage models theory models theory an excellent and
of evidence application which gaps application of the Items may appear the case study. to theory and evidence and evidence and thorough match
towards the of evidence in model to more list like with Some levels of thoroughly and debate debate from the between the
chosen towards application evidence within limited coverage critical reviewed and from the case case study. theoretical
model. the chosen of evidence the case, and debate, and evaluation. good linkage is study. Critical Critical evaluation definitions of the
There is the model. towards however, linkage more descriptive Evidence from given to coverage evaluation is is evidence and model to
potential for There is the the chosen to evaluation and linkage to the case and of the evidence in evidence and insight is given to evidence form
Application of relevant
omission, potential model. debate in discussions linkage to a focussed insight is given the business/ the case. This is
model (20). Discussion and
both from for There is the systematic rather around the discussions business/strategic to the business/ strategic debates skilfully
debate (20) (40% weighting
theory omission, potential than insightful. strategic around the debate. strategic that this might communicated
0.4).
and/applicati both from for implications that strategic debates that raise. and officer insight
on. Little/or theory omission, might arise for implications that this might raise. in to business and
no and/applica both from the business. might arise is strategic
discussions tion. theory descriptive and evaluation to the
or debate Little/or no and/applica less thought is case. Very
around discussions tion. given as to how limited areas for
business or debate Little/or no evidence from improvement.
implications around discussions the case might
is included. business or debate be carried
implication around forward in to
s is business business or
included. implication

4
 s is strategy
included, implications.
with
limited
demonstrat
ion of
independe
nt scholarly
thought.
<20 <20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90 - 100
(3 and below (3 and (4 – 5 (6 – 7 marks) (8 – 9 marks) (10 - 11 marks) (12 -13 marks) (14- 15 marks) (16- 17 marks) (18 – 20 marks)
marks) below marks) Shows a limited Shows some Fair Good, clearly Very good Excellent Outstanding
Unacceptabl marks) Shows a ability to generate thought with recommendatio stated recommendatio recommendations insight given in
e evidence No weak recommendation adequate ns but with recommendations ns clearly linked clearly linked to recommendation
to generate evidence to ability to and to discuss recommendations more limited with good to the analysis the analysis and s clearly linked to
recommend generate generate them. Little or no . Limited thought linkage to the debated linked to and strategic strategic items the analysis and
ations from recommen recommen thought as to as to business / analysis and the analysis and items from part from part 1 strategic items
the analysis dations dations and business/strategic strategic strategic items strategic items 1 brought for brought for from part 1
or linkage from the to discuss implications of implications of from part 1 from part 1 debate. Viable debate. Viable brought for
Well-founded back to analysis or them in any any brought forward brought for recommendatio recommendations debate. Viable
recommendations, linkage strategic linkage light of recommendations recommendations for debate. An debate. Viable ns with with evaluation of recommendation
to parts 1 and 2 (20% debate back to strategic/b made. made. attempt is made recommendations evaluation of which might be s with evaluation
weighting 0.2) strategic usiness to consider with thought which might be the best/least of which might be
debate implication these more fully given to the the best/least risky proposal of the best/least
s. in a proposals for the risky proposal those presented. risky proposal of
business/strateg business. of those Skilfully those presented.
y sense with presented. communicated. Limited areas for
some thought Skilfully improvement.
about practical communicated.
aspects for the
business.

5
Appendix 2 Generic marking criteria

UG Generic Assessment Criteria (covering a range of types of assessment)

Unacceptable Unsatisfactory Pass Fair Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding
Work at this level (Refer if required) Work at this level Work at this level Work at this level Work at this Work at this level Work at this level
-does not address the task set or Work at this level will demonstrate will demonstrate will demonstrate level will will demonstrate will demonstrate
represents a wholly inadequate attempt will demonstrate -limited use of -generally good -good use of demonstrate -a mastery of -a mastery of
-requires a complete re-write -an incomplete module use of some of module -accomplished complex complex
answer material the module material discussion knowledge and knowledge and
-insufficient depth -a basic level of material -ability to and ideas ideas
of understanding understanding -reasonable and compare and application - originality and - originality and
-some serious -a simply coherent contrast of theory insight derived insight derived
errors and/or descriptive description of material from a -clear ability to from a mature from a mature
major omissions approach theory variety of compare and depth of depth of
-a potentially -some errors and -limited analysis relevant contrast understanding understanding
recoverable piece omissions and evaluation sources material of material that of material
of work -no major errors -analytical ability from a wide goes well that goes well
underpinning variety of beyond that beyond that
logical relevant provided in the provided in the
argument sources module module
-well-structured, -some - creative - creative
clear and synthesis synthesis synthesis
consistent based on arising from arising from
presentation, critical critical analysis critical analysis
although there analysis and evaluation and evaluation
may be a few -well- of relevant of relevant
errors structured, information information
clear and - presentation - presentation
coherent that is clear, that is clear,
presentation, coherent and coherent and
although error free error free
there may be
a few minor
errors
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Mentions Most relevant Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
some Mentions some theories, concepts selection of selection of selection of selection of
Does not Mentions
terminology terminology Relevant theory, and models used relevant theories, relevant relevant theories, relevant theories,
Knowledg address some
relating to relating to concepts and or explained in an concepts and theories, concepts and concepts and
e of any terminology
relevant relevant theories, models used or appropriate and models used or concepts and models used or models used or
Theory, relevant relating to
theories, concepts or explained but straight forward explained models used or explained explained
Concepts theories, relevant
concepts or methods some aspects may manner with insightfully with explained innovatively with innovatively with
and concepts theories,
methods inadequate have been missed some assumptions, insightfully with full range of full range of
Methods or concepts or
wholly attempt at use or or misconstrued assumptions and implications and wide range of assumptions and assumptions and
methods methods
inadequate explanation implications contextualisation assumptions implications implications
attempt at recognised recognised and recognised with recognised with

6
 use or implications highly appropriate highly
explanation recognised with contextualisation appropriate
highly demonstrating contextualisation
appropriate excellent demonstrating
contextualisatio understanding of exceptional
n complex material understanding of
demonstrating complex material
excellent
understanding
Evidence of the
Evidence of range Evidence of Evidence of the
Evidence of fullest range of
Evidence of of relevant wide range of fullest range of
Scholarshi No Minimal Minimal evidence limited but relevant reading
No evidence relevant reading reading generally relevant reading relevant reading
p: evidence evidence presented relevant reading used critically
presented which shows clear used critically used critically used critically
Evidence presented presented is uncritically and which is which shows the
or what is attempt at which shows clear which shows which shows a
of or what is generally lacks evidence of presented highest level of
presented is independent attempt at high degree of very high level of
Reading presented irrelevant or independent uncritically and independent
generally reading and some independent independent independent
and is wholly lacking research beyond tends to use reading and an
irrelevant attempt at reading and reading and a reading and an
Research irrelevant currency core texts summary outstanding
synthesis ability to strong ability to excellent ability to
description ability to
synthesise synthesise synthesise
synthesise
No No No No demonstration Consistent Consistent
Consistent
Critical demonstr demonstrati demonstrati of critical thought Minimal Often application of application of
Demonstrates application of
Reasonin ation of on of critical on of critical but has potential demonstration of demonstrates excellently outstandingly
critical thought well integrated
g critical thought thought to be developed critical thought critical thought integrated critical integrated critical
critical thought
thought thought thought
Demonstrates Demonstrates
excellent ability outstanding
Demonstrates
to analyse a ability to analyse
excellent ability to
range of a range of
analyse a range of
topics/issues topics/issues
topics/issues
Demonstrates critically and critically and
critically and
very good ability demonstrates demonstrates
Demonstrates demonstrates
Does not analyse Demonstrates to analyse a range ability to ability to question
Use of Does not good ability to ability to question
Does not but the potential limited analysis of topics/issues question ‘received
Evidence: Does not analyse but analyse and ‘received
analyse or for analysis is with some critically. ‘received opinion’.
Analysis analyse or basic evaluate (if opinion’.
any evident. Shows development of Evaluation is well opinion’. Evaluation is well
& any analysis concepts applicable) with Evaluation is well
analysis is potential to argument and supported (if Evaluation is supported and
Evaluatio is irrelevant are arguments supported and
irrelevant develop related evaluation applicable). well supported provides
n understood developed provides
arguments. (if applicable) Arguments are and provides convincing
coherently convincing
well structured convincing conclusions (if
conclusions (if
and logical. conclusions (if applicable).
applicable).
applicable). Exceptionally
Arguments are
Arguments are complex, lucid
complex, lucid
well structured, and persuasive
and persuasive.
complex and arguments.
logical.
Incoheren Largely Generally Language errors The meaning is Consistently Consistently Consistently Consistently
Clarity of Generally fluent
t and incomprehe comprehens often impede clear but contains fluent and fluent and fluent and fluent and
Written and accurate use
incompre nsible ible but understanding language errors accurate use of accurate use of accurate use of accurate use of

7
Expressio hensible language and flow of of grammar and grammar and grammar and grammar and grammar and
n througho errors reading spelling spelling spelling spelling spelling
ut generally employing employing employing
impede appropriate appropriate genre appropriate
understandi genre and excellent genre and
ng and flow expression exceptional
of reading expression
Sufficiently Sufficiently
Skill or Sufficiently Sufficiently Sufficiently Sufficiently
Attempted Inadequatel Insufficiently demonstrated demonstrated to
Compete Not demonstrated to demonstrated to demonstrated to demonstrated to
but not y demonstrated to to be be considered to
nce: attempte be considered to be considered to be considered to be considered to
demonstrat demonstrat be considered considered to have outstanding
INSERT d have acceptable have fair have good have excellent
ed ed competent have very good competence
NAME competence level competence level competence level competence
competence
Polished and
Polished and
Demonstrates outstandingly
Polished and excellently
Structure Demonstrates consistently organised; fully
Structure Shows sufficient excellently organised; fully
wholly Structure does not good organisation logical meets structural
No generally awareness of organised; fully meets structural
Structure inappropria meet expectations and awareness of organisation and expectations and
structure inappropriat required general meets expectations and
te to the of the task required general awareness of demonstrates a
e to the task structure structural demonstrates a
task structure required general highly
expectations highly imaginative
structure imaginative
approach
approach
Oral Barely Completely Significant Insufficient clarity, Generally clear, Appropriately Persuasive Lively, eloquent Lively, eloquent, Lively, eloquent,
Communi comprehe inadequate, lack of little tailoring to some tailoring to tailored to delivery and persuasive highly highly
cation nsible, Significant clarity, context. Some context. Some context. Fluent effectively delivery and persuasive, persuasive,
(monolog no lack of inconsistent significant flaws in expression with tailored to very effectively sophisticated sophisticated
ue) connectio clarity, , minimal inadequacies, expression, some articulate context. Engages tailored delivery, superbly delivery, superbly
Inc n to inconsistent connection weak systematic errors delivery. audience to context. tailored to tailored to
organisati context. , indifferent to context. expression with of expression. Generally engages throughout. Engages context. Provides context. Provides
on, No to context. Inadequate some systematic Generally engages audience. Demonstrates a audience audience with audience with the
supportin audience Little audience errors. Insufficient audience. Demonstrates a high level of throughout. high levels of highest levels of
g material awarenes audience awareness. audience Demonstrates a general level of understanding Demonstrates engagement engagement
and s. Does awareness. Demonstrat awareness. Does sufficient level of understanding through excellent throughout. throughout.
delivery not Demonstrat es an not demonstrate understanding through extemporaneous understanding Demonstrates Demonstrates
demonstr es minimal inadequate sufficient level of through extemporaneous delivery through excellent outstanding
ate any understandi level of understanding extemporaneous delivery extemporaneou understanding understanding
understan ng understandi delivery s delivery through through
ding ng extemporaneous extemporaneous
delivery delivery
Length Length Length
Length
requirem requiremen requiremen Length
requirement met Fair standard of
ents may ts may not ts may not requirement met
and academic presentation;
not be be be and academic Highest
Presentati conventions length Very good Professional
observed; observed; observed; conventions Good standards professional
on of mostly followed. requirement met standards of standards of
does not does not generally mostly followed. of presentation standards of
work Possibly very and academic presentation presentation
follow follow does not Minor errors in presentation
minor errors in conventions
academic academic follow language or
language or followed
conventio conventions academic presentation
presentation
ns; ; language conventions

8
 language and ; language
and presentatio and/or
presentati n errors presentatio
on errors impact on n errors
impact on intelligibility may impact
intelligibili on
ty intelligibility
Reflection No Some A wholly A level of An adequate level A fair level of A good level of A very good An excellent An outstanding
attempt evidence of inadequate reflection which of reflection. reflection. There reflection. There level of reflection. reflection.
at an attempt level of does not meet There is evidence are some of are a number of reflection. Contains a wide Contains a wide
reflection at reflection reflection. minimum of relevant linking instances where instances where There are many range of instances range of
but does There is no expectations. between self and relevant links relevant links instances where where relevant instances where
not link Insufficient linking theories, models, have been made have been made relevant links links have been relevant links
constitute between between self and concepts, and/or between self and between self and have been made between have been made
reflection. self and relevant theories, strategies. relevant theories, relevant theories, made between self and theories, between self and
relevant models, concepts, Viewpoints and models, concepts, models, concepts, self and models, concepts, theories, models,
theories, and/or strategies. interpretations and/or strategies. and/or strategies. theories, and/or strategies. concepts, and/or
models, Viewpoints and are generally Viewpoints and models, strategies.
concepts, interpretations supported. Some interpretations concepts,
Evidence of Extensive
and/or are insufficiently relevant are supported. and/or
analysis through evidence of Extensive
strategies. supported or examples, when Appropriate strategies.
questioning and analysis through evidence of
Viewpoints supported with applicable, are examples are
challenging of questioning and analysis through
and flawed provided. provided, as
assumptions Extensive challenging of questioning and
interpretati arguments. applicable
leading to evidence of assumptions challenging of
ons are Irrelevant
transformation of analysis through leading to assumptions
missing, exemplification.
personal insight. questioning and transformation of leading to
inappropriat
challenging of personal insight. transformation of
e, and/or
assumptions personal insight.
unsupporte Well supported
leading to
d. Irrelevant by clear, detailed Well supported by
transformation
exemplificat examples as clear, detailed Well supported
of personal
ion. applicable. examples as by clear, detailed
insight.
applicable. examples as
applicable
Well supported
by clear,
detailed
examples as
applicable.
Ethics, Not Considerati Considered Considered with Considered with Wide Full consideration Full Full consideration Full consideration
sustainabi considere on at a with relevant solutions relevant solutions consideration of implications for consideration of of implications for of implications
lity & d or no superficial relevant identified but little identified and with relevant subject with implications for subject with for subject with
Responsib relevance level with solutions detail relevant to adequate detail solutions range of solutions subject with extensive range of full range of
ility minimal identified the subject. relevant to the identified and discussed in wide range of solutions solutions
(subject relevance to but no subject. appropriate detail detail. solutions discussed in discussed in
area) subject. detail relevant to the discussed in detail. detail.
relevant to subject. detail.
the subject.

9
Ethics, Not Considerati Considered Considered with Considered with Wide Full consideration Full Full consideration Full
sustainabi considere on at a with relevant solutions relevant solutions consideration of implications for consideration of of implications for consideration of
lity & d or no superficial relevant identified but little identified and with relevant professional implications for professional implications for
Responsib relevance level with solutions detail relevant to adequate detail solutions practice with professional practice with professional
ility minimal identified professional relevant to identified and range of solutions practice with extensive range of practice with full
(professio relevance but no practice. professional appropriate detail discussed in wide range of solutions range of solutions
nal shown to detail practice. relevant to detail. solutions discussed in discussed in
practice) professional relevant to professional discussed in detail. detail.
practice. professional practice. detail.
practice.
Teamwor No Minimal Marginal Little teamwork or Worked together Generally Highly cohesive Very good team Excellent team Exceptional team
k and evidence teamwork, teamwork, effort to much of the time, cohesive team, all team, all cohesion, all cohesion, all cohesion, all
Oral of unaddresse conflicts collaborate With adequate members active members active, members members members
communi teamwork d unaddresse effectively, level of most of the time, high levels of active, high consistently consistently
cation or conflicts d, little symptoms of lack engagement. exercising mutual mutual respect levels of mutual active mutually active mutually
(dialogue) engageme evident, engagemen of mutual respect. Some unresolved respect and and evidence of respect and respectful and respectful and
nt with negative t with conflict but evidence of effective dialogue evidence of evidence of evidence of
views or engagemen difference mostly respectful effective dialogue most of the time. effective effective dialogue effective dialogue
learning t with evidence of most of the time. Any conflict dialogue throughout. Any throughout. Any
of others. with listening. Any conflict identified and throughout. conflict identified conflict identified
difference resolved. resolved quickly. Any conflict and resolved and resolved
identified and early. early.
resolved early.
Critical No Lack of any Unsupporte Insufficiently Evidence of Evidence of ability Evidence of ability Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of
peer comment reasoning in d reasoning supported reasoned to assess to assess ability to assess excellent ability to outstanding
review made on comments in reasoning in comments made strengths and strengths and strengths and assess strengths ability to assess
the work made on comments comments made on the work of weaknesses in the weaknesses in the weaknesses in and weaknesses strengths and
of peers the work of made on on the work of peers work of peers work of peers and the work of in the work of weaknesses in
peers the work of peers judge areas for peers and judge peers and judge the work of peers
peers improvement areas for areas for and judge areas
improvement. improvement. for improvement.
Provides Provides Provides
commentary on commentary on outstanding
assessment assessment commentary on
outcome and outcome and can assessment
can offer offer detailed outcome and can
insights into insights into how offer detailed
how it could be it could be insights into how
developed. developed. it could be
developed.
Originalit No Any Any Insufficient Limited evidence Some evidence of General evidence High level of Strong evidence Outstanding
y evidence attempt at attempt at evidence of of independent independent of independent evidence of of independent evidence of
of any independen independen independent thinking and thinking and thinking and independent thinking and independent
attempt t thinking is t thinking is thinking and development of development of development of thinking and development of thinking and
at irrelevant generally development of own ideas own ideas own ideas development of own ideas development of
independ irrelevant own ideas own ideas own ideas
ent
thinking
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

10
11